paradoxfandomcom-20200223-history
A Beginning
cool. I'm still reading it.... why do you fight so hard to say that your idea of "ego" is the only way? Or have i misunderstood? We have to meet each other from wherever we are. We don't necessarily all believe in the "ego" the way you do. ego? i never talked about ego. you did The "I" the perceiver. that was how I understood ego. no. it is different okay. The perceiver doesn't have any qualities what specifically do you mean? you mistake the thing perceived with the perceiver how can it lack qualities if it has the quality that it has no qualities? you see the paradox. it is a paradox in logical terms I do not mistsake them, I equate them.. there is no paradox but we have to define everything in terms of things that are perceived you cannot perceive the perceiver do you understand that that is a predominately Western philosophy? no it is not it is eastern I'm under the impression that self-awareness is the goal of basically all the Eastern Religions. much older than greek philosophy and it is not a "philosophy" it ids observance and elimination of logical paradoxes "perceiving the perceiver" is what self-awareness and self-realization is all about!!! in my opinion. self awareness is not possible it is the self that is aware And yet you can learn about yourself. it is not a physical object it doesn't have to be in order to be real. "yourself" is not the "I" the "eye" it is a conception you are the eye the eye "I" cannot perceive itself okay. I understand that I have the ability to become more aware of myself and the world. I would like to make a map of awareness why cannot the perceiver perceive itself? Unless you are assuming what you would claim to prove..... whic I think you are I WILL ANSWER sorry capslock okay. I still think you are introducing the division and then concluding it. these ideas are YOUR ideas. they are axiomatic to you. will you let me answer the question goddammit? sure, jump in. sorry, curse-lock :P There is no division there is the field and the perceiver of the field the field does not perceive the perceiver the perceiver can be aware that perception takes place but everything perceived is not the perceiver when the seer tries to see itsef, it only sees a perception not itself because he is actually looking at an idea of itself you, deep inside you, are perceiving Now there is the IDEA of the self. but it is a dream, a conception of things seen, close by in the field and when you try to look at yourself, your inner core, the perceiver, you see only something like a sun, or a mirror but it is all part of the field, not the perceiver of the field the perceiver has no qualities, because qualities are in the domain of the field not of the perceiver do I get to have a go now? no :P sure man shoot me rememeber that i am a slow typist have patience. may i say 1 thing before that? okay. if it's brief. :) i forgot. go ahead I'll have a smoke I would offer the following, but will not fight. first, you say that there is no division and then define "perceiver and perceived" as mutually exclusive concepts. may i answer that? first? not yet. I'll forget ok take your time ill read it you introduce the idea that in trying to see oneself, one can only see the IDEA of oneself. I simply disagree. It would seem that you feel we are only aware of ideas of the perceived whereas I believe in immediate experience. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy we have. There's no way to resolve it, only a way to try to understand and appreciate each other from our different sides. You can say all you want that there is no division, but everything you say afterward indicates a marked distinciton between "the perceiver and the field." I do not believe that awareness is filtered through ANYTHING. It is the recognition of the evidence of the sense and not only the outward senses but also the inner senses like "intuition" and "courage" and "faith" and the like. I believe that one can impose a philosophy upon reality such as that which you would have me accept from you, but it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't mean we cannot talk civilly about what we believe, but we must understand the basic distinction. If there is no distinction between the perceiver and the perceived, then there is no reason the perceived cannot perceive itself, which I believe it does, and in fact count on it. And btw, there is no reason to conclude that the field does NOT perceive me. so the distinction is imposing a set of definitions and rules for manipulating those definitions to conclude what you want. I do not believe I can EVER do that again. I lived that way for too long. My way does not have to be consistent or complete, only satisfying. I respect your choices. But I do not share them. I hope there is a way for us to remain friends. You seem to get very angry about these things. I make a choice. So do you. wait wait we're talking rational here It's alright, I was finished. no. we are talking experiential. i dont want to make you believe anything yes i'm trying to figure it out myself I'm speaking from what I live through as much as possible. Shall I "scream at my eyes?" I am just trying to put into words what i have experienced too I believe you. the experience comes before the explanation that's what I believe. and words are deceptive the experience comes first, then the words. this is why it's so important what things mean. yes. we agree with that. I'm glad we do you have put a de facto division between your perceiver and the perceived and field. or so it seems. I don't agree with that i will explain i'll try okay, you can try. there is no division, actually because everything that exists is. and it is one. no paradox in existence. everything is the division is made by our minds then we don't need to talk in terms of it, if it is made by our minds. We don't have to accept that illusion! surely you would agree! for the sake of the argument: there is no division, because either the field doesnt exist or the perceiver doesn't exist or they both do and then there is no problem but to answer the second: this is an idea you have about experience being filtered through idea the field is there because it is made out of different awarenesses it is an illusion created by the self if they both exist, I'd call that a pretty distinct assumption of the difference. I think you have an idea and are trying to make the logic fit your assumptions. It is a controversy, because you see the perceiver as part of the field. but it is not "different awarenesses"? yes. words.... I want to know what YOU experience as real. Not your logical fabrications. they are like what do you actually LIVE through? You're a writer, a poet, I live my daily life i am i am a thinker what does your heart tell you about what exists? Not some logical interface between you and the world. Logic is a way to be "right". Not necessarily to tell the truth. You are a feeler, too! i have a different idea of logic I know you are. I've felt it! well then, there we are. i am a very sensitive person and intelligent so am I. and I understand. I'm trying to come to a meeting of the minds. and im a fool yes. well, i think the first thing we should do I've been an idiot once or twice in my day. :) is: make a map MathPoet? This is like the ninth time you've mentioned that. yes but you've never answered so i don't know what you're talking about. #10 okay on our site: OURSITE :) doesnt that sound nice? We will start a series of articles what does it mean? a map? treating the psychic experience as if it were a physical one? by which we'll define what you and i and/or others understand by ters like terms like "I", "ego" I think it should be in the forum. How historically ironic. awareness, truth or else there will be misunderstandings always I don't know as I can give definitions, except as very hesitant ones. "The spiritual life is no idea. Wd have to live it." We don't have to misunderstand in order to disagree. What we should do is examine every word someone uses and put it in context so it won't explode intto all kinds of misconceptions No. what we should do is have people articulate as best they can, what they actually live through. Maybe that's where to start. I would like this cadres: cadre: What's a cadre? a frame sorry. i'm called away. brb framework we can have a side for experiential exploration and one for the logician theorist. It will be an interesting dichotomy, I think, as long as we can avoid flamewars. but go ahead. sorry about the interrupt. Please go on. brb me too back okay, so I'll go ahead. Cadre tends to mean "school of thought" usually led by someone. hm.. i wouldn't set myself up in any position like that. but as simply paths. that's different again. If you set is up as a forum site with two subforums, that might be good! Is that the kind of thing you intended? i'll think about the format i have different idea of it okay. but ok. i will put it upthere first don't go away without telling me your idea/ ok DGN??? i have another 1 1/2 hour online I don't have as long. We need to wrap this up. what is your idea? my idea is: I log this conversation on the forum and in the next weeks you and i have some serious editing to do :P wddya say? I was going to suggest the recording of the log, but to set it up on the forum...??? I could do the editting. That's easy enough. ok. please be my guest and log it for us :) I need a forum thing and don't remember how to set a new one up. can you do that? It's the nature of my disability. I have to find out about the forum bit too you know what? i'll bug someone on wikia about it right now will you log his conversation then? do you still want to set up a kind of "Graham's corner" and "Ayo's place"? no of course not You want this log as an article in the mean time? I want to define concepts before we talk about them *logged i have an idea uh oh. :) heh... ??? what sorry, i was distracted by rorozarzar pick up the pace, i have to go soon. I want to put up an unsolvable question, that is divided between two opposites in between there is a rugbyball I'd call it "the Gordian Knot" the shape i mean something like that yes, or a labyrinth you need to develop this - to be clear. do you want this conversation logged as an article on our site? log it as the last ones. I've made an article: The Rock. you could paste it under there We could have a forum post as to what is the best unsolvable question. hm.. yes the riddle of the month this differences between disciplines: we'll have to know what the hell we're talking about define concepts what have you done? what? I thought you wanted me to copy the log! how far did you copy? i've done nothing only talk on irc The Rock is full wtf? :? do you often do things without remembering them? check it out. I didn't make the article or know anything about it before you mentioned it. what's up? its good now i think reload F5 I created The Rock 3 hours ago or two haha well, where does what you copied end so we can complete the transfer? it ends at the bottom of the page the title of the project i thought of is called: "I see a rock" "I" "see" "a" "rock" I perceive something --define "I" --define "see"" --define Rock" category:Discussions